DOCSLIB.ORG

Report to Congress on FAA Evaluation of Commercial Human

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report to Congress on FAA Evaluation of Commercial Human FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Report to Congress: FAA Evaluation of Commercial Human Space Flight Safety Frameworks and Key Industry Indicators U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA), Public Law 114-90, Section 111(5); 51 USC § 50905(c)(5), (6) Contents I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 III. State of the Commercial Human Space Flight Industry ........................................................... 4 IV. Safety Framework Stakeholders ............................................................................................... 6 V. Current Legislative and Regulatory Framework for Safety of Human Space Flight ................. 7 VI. Benefits of a Safety Framework ............................................................................................. 10 VII. Elements and Leadership of Safety Frameworks .................................................................. 11 VIII. Industry and Government Readiness Indicators .................................................................. 15 IX. Progress of the Industry in Developing Voluntary Industry Consensus Standards ................ 24 X. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 36 I. Executive Summary This report responds to Congress’ request to specify key industry metrics that might indicate readiness of the commercial space sector and the Department of Transportation to transition to a safety framework that may include regulations for human space flight. A safety framework can evolve from company-driven to industry-driven, with various levels of potential government involvement, as industry grows and matures. Industry’s proactive participation in a safety framework can influence the timing and extent of government regulatory involvement, and successful implementation of an industry-led framework could minimize the need for government involvement. This report also responds to Congress’ request to report on the progress of the commercial space transportation industry in developing voluntary industry consensus standards that promote best practices to improve industry safety. The report first provides context to Congress’ legislative direction by considering the state of the commercial human space flight industry as an evolving industry that is rapidly innovating. In 2004, as part of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, Congress placed a moratorium on the FAA establishing any new regulations related to occupant safety for commercial human space flight. The industry has received two extensions of the moratorium or “learning period” since its inception. During the learning period, significant advancements have occurred in the human space flight industry. The report also includes a discussion of stakeholders to the safety framework and current legislative and regulatory regimes that are in place for the human space flight industry. Although the FAA is currently prohibited from promulgating any regulations governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle intended to protect the health and safety of crew, government astronauts, and space flight participants until the year 2023, absent death, serious injury, or close call, the FAA is responsible for ensuring the safety of launch and reentry operations as it pertains to public health and safety. The FAA also enforces informed consent and cross-waiver requirements for space flight participants and has the authority to regulate training and medical requirements for crew. These are important aspects of the current regulatory framework for the safety of human space flight operations. The report provides a review of those current authorities. The report defines specific benefits of a safety framework, and examines the various types of safety frameworks including government led, industry led, and co-led. The report also discusses the types of safety requirements included in any framework, such as performance-based, process- based, and prescriptive. Federal Aviation Administration Report to Congress: FAA Evaluation of Commercial Human Space Flight Safety Frameworks and Key Industry Indicators The legislative direction in the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act required the report to include key industry metrics that might indicate readiness of both the industry and the Department of Transportation to transition to a safety framework that may include regulations related to occupant safety for commercial human space flight. This report provides metrics, in the form of indicators, in the context of the maturity and overall development of the industry. While the indicators are not “pass/fail” necessarily, they do provide a measure of industry’s evolving safety framework and can be used to assess the industry’s approach to safety. This approach provides maximum flexibility for Congress in determining the time and manner of a transition to a safety framework that may include regulations. Finally, the report provides of assessment on the progress of the commercial space transportation industry in developing voluntary industry consensus standards. II. Introduction The FAA has exercised oversight responsibility for commercial space transportation activities since 1995, when the Secretary of Transportation delegated authority over the activities to the FAA Administrator, and the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) was established at the FAA. The FAA, through AST, licenses and permits the launch of launch vehicles, the reentry of reentry vehicles, and the operation of launch and reentry sites consistent with public health and safety, safety of property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. AST’s mission is unique within the FAA in that it also includes the responsibility to encourage, facilitate, and promote launches and reentries by the private sector. These complementary mission objectives together provide an oversight framework that has proven to be very beneficial both to the industry and to the American people. While the FAA has licensed or permitted over 290 launches, there have never been any fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage to members of the public. The FAA’s responsibilities are not limited to protecting the uninvolved public. In 2004 Congress granted the Secretary of Transportation authority to oversee the safety of the emerging commercial human space flight industry, but limited the FAA’s rulemaking authority. To ensure that the industry has an ample “learning period” to develop, Congress prohibited the FAA, absent death, serious injury, or close call, from promulgating any regulations governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle intended to protect the health and safety of crew and space flight participants until the year 2012. Congress has extended this prohibition twice – the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 20121 extended it to October 1, 2015, and the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA) extended it to October 1, 2023. However, Congress did encourage FAA to continue to work with industry on ways to improve human 1 Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 827. 2 Federal Aviation Administration Report to Congress: FAA Evaluation of Commercial Human Space Flight Safety Frameworks and Key Industry Indicators space flight safety. In August 2014, the FAA released a set of “Recommended Practices for Human Space Flight Occupant Safety.” This 62-page document covers three major areas: design, manufacturing, and operations. While the recommended practices are voluntary and do not constitute regulations, the document gives industry insight into the various areas of concern that future safety frameworks may address. The FAA is also actively engaged with the commercial space transportation industry in its development of voluntary consensus standards. Legislative Direction The CSLCA requires the Secretary of Transportation to submit a report on key industry metrics that might indicate readiness of the commercial space sector and the Department of Transportation to transition to a safety framework that may include regulations. Specifically, section 111(5) of the CSLCA modified 51 USC § 50905(c) by adding, among other things, paragraph (6) which directs the Secretary of Transportation to: REPORT.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of the SPACE Act of 2015, the Secretary, in consultation and coordination with the commercial space sector, including the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or its successor organization, shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a report specifying key industry metrics that might indicate readiness of the commercial space sector and the Department of Transportation to transition to a safety framework that may include regulations under paragraph (9) that considers space flight participant, government astronaut, and crew safety. The CSLCA also required the Secretary of Transportation to submit a series of reports on the progress of the commercial space transportation industry in developing voluntary industry consensus standards that promote best practices to improve industry
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supportability for Beyond Low Earth Orbit Missions
    Supportability for Beyond Low Earth Orbit Missions William Cirillo1 and Kandyce Goodliff2 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23681 Gordon Aaseng3 NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, 94035 Chel Stromgren4 Binera, Inc., Silver Springs, MD, 20910 and Andrew Maxwell5 Georgia Institute of Technology, Hampton, VA 23666 Exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) presents many unique challenges that will require changes from current Supportability approaches. Currently, the International Space Station (ISS) is supported and maintained through a series of preplanned resupply flights, on which spare parts, including some large, heavy Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs), are delivered to the ISS. The Space Shuttle system provided for a robust capability to return failed components to Earth for detailed examination and potential repair. Additionally, as components fail and spares are not already on-orbit, there is flexibility in the transportation system to deliver those required replacement parts to ISS on a near term basis. A similar concept of operation will not be feasible for beyond LEO exploration. The mass and volume constraints of the transportation system and long envisioned mission durations could make it difficult to manifest necessary spares. The supply of on-demand spare parts for missions beyond LEO will be very limited or even non-existent. In addition, the remote nature of the mission, the design of the spacecraft, and the limitations on crew capabilities will all make it more difficult to maintain the spacecraft. Alternate concepts of operation must be explored in which required spare parts, materials, and tools are made available to make repairs; the locations of the failures are accessible; and the information needed to conduct repairs is available to the crew.
    [Show full text]
  • Weather and Aviation: How Does Weather Affect the Safety and Operations of Airports and Aviation, and How Does FAA Work to Manage Weather-Related Effects?
    Kulesa 1 Weather and Aviation: How Does Weather Affect the Safety and Operations of Airports and Aviation, and How Does FAA Work to Manage Weather-related Effects? By Gloria Kulesa Weather Impacts On Aviation In addition, weather continues to play a significant role in a number of aviation Introduction accidents and incidents. While National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports ccording to FAA statistics, weather is most commonly find human error to be the the cause of approximately 70 percent direct accident cause, weather is a primary of the delays in the National Airspace contributing factor in 23 percent of all System (NAS). Figure 1 illustrates aviation accidents. The total weather impact that while weather delays declined with overall is an estimated national cost of $3 billion for NAS delays after September 11th, 2001, delays accident damage and injuries, delays, and have since returned to near-record levels. unexpected operating costs. 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1 01 01 0 01 02 02 ul an 01 J ep an 02 J Mar May S Nov 01 J Mar May Weather Delays Other Delays Figure 1. Delay hours in the National Airspace System for January 2001 to July 2002. Delay hours peaked at 50,000 hours per month in August 2001, declined to less than 15,000 per month for the months following September 11, but exceeded 30,000 per month in the summer of 2002. Weather delays comprise the majority of delays in all seasons. The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation 2 Weather and Aviation: How Does Weather Affect the Safety and Operations of Airports and Aviation, and How Does FAA Work to Manage Weather-related Effects? Thunderstorms and Other Convective In-Flight Icing.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Bug" Heard 'Round the World
    ACM SIGSOFT SOFTWAREENGINEERING NOTES, Vol 6 No 5, October 1981 Page 3 THE "BUG" HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD Discussion of the software problem which delayed the first Shuttle orbital flight JohnR. Garman Cn April 10, 1981, about 20 minutes prior to the scheduled launching of the first flight of America's Space Transportation System, astronauts and technicians attempted to initialize the software system which "backs-up" the quad-redundant primary software system ...... and could not. In fact, there was no possible way, it turns out, that the BFS (Backup Flight Control System) in the fifth onboard computer could have been initialized , Froperly with the PASS (Primary Avionics Software System) already executing in the other four computers. There was a "bug" - a very small, very improbable, very intricate, and very old mistake in the initialization logic of the PASS. It was the type of mistake that gives programmers and managers alike nightmares - and %heoreticians and analysts endless challenge. I% was the kind of mistake that "cannot happen" if one "follows all the rules" of good software design and implementation. It was the kind of mistake that can never be ruled out in the world of real systems development: a world involving hundreds of programmers and analysts, thousands of hours of testing and simulation, and millions of pages of design specifications, implementation schedules, and test plans and reports. Because in that world, software is in fact "soft" - in a large complex real time control system like the Shuttle's avionics system, software is pervasive and, in virtually every case, the last subsystem to stabilize.
    [Show full text]
  • Science in Nasa's Vision for Space Exploration
    SCIENCE IN NASA’S VISION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION SCIENCE IN NASA’S VISION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION Committee on the Scientific Context for Space Exploration Space Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by Contract NASW 01001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09593-X (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-54880-2 (PDF) Copies of this report are available free of charge from Space Studies Board National Research Council The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Rocket Booklet
    A guide to building and understanding the physics of Water Rockets Version 1.02 June 2007 Warning: Water Rocketeering is a potentially dangerous activity and individuals following the instructions herein do so at their own risk. Exclusion of liability: NPL Management Limited cannot exclude the risk of accident and, for this reason, hereby exclude, to the maximum extent permissible by law, any and all liability for loss, damage, or harm, howsoever arising. Contents WATER ROCKETS SECTION 1: WHAT IS A WATER ROCKET? 1 SECTION 3: LAUNCHERS 9 SECTION 4: OPTIMISING ROCKET DESIGN 15 SECTION 5: TESTING YOUR ROCKET 24 SECTION 6: PHYSICS OF A WATER ROCKET 29 SECTION 7: COMPUTER SIMULATION 32 SECTION 8: SAFETY 37 SECTION 9: USEFUL INFORMATION 38 SECTION 10: SOME INTERESTING DETAILS 40 Copyright and Reproduction Michael de Podesta hereby asserts his right to be identified as author of this booklet. The copyright of this booklet is owned by NPL. Michael de Podesta and NPL grant permission to reproduce the booklet in part or in whole for any not-for-profit educational activity, but you must acknowledge both the author and the copyright owner. Acknowledgements I began writing this guide to support people entering the NPL Water Rocket Competition. So the first acknowledgement has to be to Dr. Nick McCormick, who founded the competition many years ago and who is still the driving force behind the activity at NPL. Nick’s instinct for physics and fun has brought pleasure to thousands. The inspiration to actually begin writing this document instead of just saying that someone ought to do it, was provided by Andrew Hanson.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Aerocapture and Applications to Future Missions
    Post-Exit Atmospheric Flight Cruise Approach An Assessment of Aerocapture and Applications to Future Missions February 13, 2016 National Aeronautics and Space Administration An Assessment of Aerocapture Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California and Applications to Future Missions Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology for Planetary Science Division Science Mission Directorate NASA Work Performed under the Planetary Science Program Support Task ©2016. All rights reserved. D-97058 February 13, 2016 Authors Thomas R. Spilker, Independent Consultant Mark Hofstadter Chester S. Borden, JPL/Caltech Jessie M. Kawata Mark Adler, JPL/Caltech Damon Landau Michelle M. Munk, LaRC Daniel T. Lyons Richard W. Powell, LaRC Kim R. Reh Robert D. Braun, GIT Randii R. Wessen Patricia M. Beauchamp, JPL/Caltech NASA Ames Research Center James A. Cutts, JPL/Caltech Parul Agrawal Paul F. Wercinski, ARC Helen H. Hwang and the A-Team Paul F. Wercinski NASA Langley Research Center F. McNeil Cheatwood A-Team Study Participants Jeffrey A. Herath Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech Michelle M. Munk Mark Adler Richard W. Powell Nitin Arora Johnson Space Center Patricia M. Beauchamp Ronald R. Sostaric Chester S. Borden Independent Consultant James A. Cutts Thomas R. Spilker Gregory L. Davis Georgia Institute of Technology John O. Elliott Prof. Robert D. Braun – External Reviewer Jefferey L. Hall Engineering and Science Directorate JPL D-97058 Foreword Aerocapture has been proposed for several missions over the last couple of decades, and the technologies have matured over time. This study was initiated because the NASA Planetary Science Division (PSD) had not revisited Aerocapture technologies for about a decade and with the upcoming study to send a mission to Uranus/Neptune initiated by the PSD we needed to determine the status of the technologies and assess their readiness for such a mission.
    [Show full text]
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Behavior During Spaceflight - Videncee from an Analog Environment
    Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research Volume 25 Number 1 JAAER Fall 2015 Article 2 Fall 2015 Human Behavior During Spaceflight - videnceE From an Analog Environment Kenny M. Arnaldi Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, [email protected] Guy Smith Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, [email protected] Jennifer E. Thropp Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Daytona Beach, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/jaaer Part of the Applied Behavior Analysis Commons, Experimental Analysis of Behavior Commons, and the Other Astrophysics and Astronomy Commons Scholarly Commons Citation Arnaldi, K. M., Smith, G., & Thropp, J. E. (2015). Human Behavior During Spaceflight - videnceE From an Analog Environment. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 25(1). https://doi.org/ 10.15394/jaaer.2015.1676 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Arnaldi et al.: Human Behavior During Spaceflight - Evidence From an Analog Environment Introduction Four years after the launch of Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to reach space (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], 2011a). The United States soon followed on the path of manned space exploration with Project Mercury. Although this program began with suborbital flights, manned spacecraft were subsequently launched into orbit around the Earth (NASA, 2012). With President Kennedy setting the goal of landing a man on the moon, NASA focused on short-duration orbital flights as a stepping-stone to lunar missions.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward Concept Feasibility
    Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward Concept Feasibility Charles L. Kelly A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics & Astronautics University of Washington 2018 Committee: Uri Shumlak, Chair Justin Little Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Aeronautics & Astronautics c Copyright 2018 Charles L. Kelly University of Washington Abstract Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward Concept Feasibility Charles L. Kelly Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Uri Shumlak Aeronautics & Astronautics Magnetoshell Aerocapture (MAC) is a novel technology that proposes to use drag on a dipole plasma in planetary atmospheres as an orbit insertion technique. It aims to augment the benefits of traditional aerocapture by trapping particles over a much larger area than physical structures can reach. This enables aerocapture at higher altitudes, greatly reducing the heat load and dynamic pressure on spacecraft surfaces. The technology is in its early stages of development, and has yet to demonstrate feasibility in an orbit-representative envi- ronment. The lack of a proof-of-concept stems mainly from the unavailability of large-scale, high-velocity test facilities that can accurately simulate the aerocapture environment. In this thesis, several avenues are identified that can bring MAC closer to a successful demonstration of concept feasibility. A custom orbit code that dynamically couples magnetoshell physics with trajectory prop- agation is developed and benchmarked. The code is used to simulate MAC maneuvers for a 60 ton payload at Mars and a 1 ton payload at Neptune, both proposed NASA mis- sions that are not possible with modern flight-ready technology. In both simulations, MAC successfully completes the maneuver and is shown to produce low dynamic pressures and continuously-variable drag characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • APPLICATION for FLIGHT SCHOOL LICENSE Page 1 of 2 of 4Transportation9 Informationrequired by Act 327, P.A
    Michigan Department APPLICATION FOR FLIGHT SCHOOL LICENSE Page 1 of 2 of 4Transportation9 Informationrequired by Act 327, P.A. of 1945 to apply for license. AERONAUTICS 00 (01/21) USE ONLY RETURN TO: DATE Michigan Department of Transportation Finance Cashier AMOUNT P. 0. Box 30648 Lansing, Ml 48909 LIC.NO. (517) 242-7771 or (517) 335-9283 EXP.DATE FEES: Initial - $25.00, Annual Renewal - $10.00, Late Renewal - $25.00. SCHOOL NAME PHONE NO. DATE I OWNER(S) SCHOOL MANAGER MAILLING ADDRESS CITY I ZIP CODE NAME OF THE AIRPORT WHERE FLIGHT SCHOOL WILL BE BASED FAX I E-MAIL Courses Offered: □ Private □ Part 141 School □ Type Ratings D Flight Instructor D Ground School □ Recreation □ Commercial D Sea Plane D Instrument □ Glider □ Sport □ Multi Engine D Airline Transport D Helicopter MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL Name Address FAA Certificate Number Chief Mechanic INSTRUCTOR FLIGHT Name Address FAA Certificate Number Chief Flight Instructor □ Instrument □ Multi Enoine □ Instrument □ Multi Enqine □ Instrument □ Multi Engine □ Instrument □ Multi Enoine □ Instrument □ Multi Engine □ Instrument □ Multi Enoine □ Instrument □ Multi Enqine Flight School Aircraft Michigan To be completed by State Registrar Aircraft Make Model N Number AERO USE ONLY Registration 1. □ Yes □ No 2. □ Yes □ No 3. □ Yes □ No 4. □ Yes □ No 5. □ Yes □ No 6. □ Yes □ No 7. □ Yes □ No MDOT4009 (01/21) Page 2 of 2 Flight School Manager Compliance Checklist and Certification Please answer the questions below. Refer to the enclosed Michigan Aeronautics Code, section 259.85 (Flight Schools) requirements. Yes No Do You: □ □ Operate from an airport licensed by the State of Michigan? □ □ Have a written commercial operating agreement with the airport at which the school is based? (Submit a copy with this application or submit airport manager signature).
    [Show full text]
  • Repair Station Capabilities List
    Approved by: Astronautics Corporation of America J. Simet, Repair Station Supervisor Approved by: TITLE: Astronautics Corp. of America Repair Station Capabilities List QAP 2003/2 REV. H J. Williams, Repair Station Accountable Manager CODE IDENT NO 10138 Page 1 of 35 Astronautics’ Capabilities List QAP 2003/2 Revision H QAP 2003/2 Astronautics Corporation of America REV SYM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE DATE APPROVED A Initial Release. 3/25/2003 PFM B Updated to reflect FAA comments regarding when revisions will 1/16/2004 JT, DY, JGW be submitted. C Updated to change the preliminary XQAR449-P-L Repair 6/25/2004 JT, EF, JGW Station Number to XQAR449L. Added the 197800-1 & -3 DU, the 198200-1 & -3 EU, the 198000-( ) EFI and its 198040-( ) Control Panel, and the 260500-( ) EFI. App Added the PMA’d 197800-1 and -3 Display Unit, the 198200-1 6/25/2004 JGW A and -3 Electronics Unit, and the TSOA’d 198000-( ) EFI and its 198040-( ) Control Panel, and the 260500-( ) EFI. The self- evaluation for these items was performed under paragraph 5.5 (d) of this document. These FAA approvals were the basis for the additions. D Updated to separate Appendix A from the text (removed the date 11/30/2004 JT, EF, JGW on the cover sheet for the Appendix). The FAA will be sent a copy of the Appendix within ten days of the date on the Appendix whenever items are added or removed. The appendix will be controlled by date. A copy of the QAP cover sheet and text are controlled by revision letter, and a copy of that will be submitted to the FAA within ten days of the date that the new revision letter version of the text is released.
    [Show full text]
  • FROM SPACE TOURISTS to UNRULY PASSENGERS? the US STRUGGLE with ‘ON-ORBIT JURISDICTION’ Frans G
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Law, College of Program Faculty Publications 2014 From Space Tourists to Unruly Passengers? The U.S. Struggle with "On-Orbit Jurisdiction" F. G. von der Dunk University of Nebraska–Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw Part of the Air and Space Law Commons von der Dunk, F. G., "From Space Tourists to Unruly Passengers? The .SU . Struggle with "On-Orbit Jurisdiction"" (2014). Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications. 81. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw/81 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. IAC-14,E7,4.2x21779 FROM SPACE TOURISTS TO UNRULY PASSENGERS? THE US STRUGGLE WITH ‘ON-ORBIT JURISDICTION’ Frans G. von der Dunk University of Nebraska-Lincoln, College of Law, Space, Cyber and Telecommunications Law Program [email protected] Abstract With the first proper commercial sub-orbital ‘space tourist’ flights seemingly around the corner, the need to develop a proper legal system addressing all relevant parameters, scenarios and events also arises more visibly. This is particularly true for the United States, where so far the major developments in private manned spaceflight are concentrated, some of which may soon move from relatively straightforward up-and-down sub-orbital trajectories to longer-duration sub- orbital and/or orbital flights, or even long-duration presence in (potentially private) space stations.
    [Show full text]